It is, indeed, a war against nature. But first off, what is nature to begin with? It is, quite simply, the balance that exists in this world. I say humanity is at war with nature because we want, and are changing this balance with whatever means necessary, to satisfy our needs. Sure, there is some people that disagree with this and try to prevent damage to nature, but even they innevitably hurt it. Or who here likes living in a cave, eating food cooked over a flame sprung by hitting two rocks together? No takers, right? Then we are changing balance. Sure, most of those changes are very well acceptable: the problem is, our growth is too quick, and our collective impact too big. So right now, the war is starting. It's not like you'll be seeing soldiers fire at trees or something: that's not the kind of war, lol. I doubt there are people who seriously want to make nature cease to exist. But we still want to bend it to our will, but nature just cannot respond the way we want to.

So, it is definitely a struggle, and so I call it war. And Aister, you said something interesting: nature isnt a powerful presence. Really? Are you not part of nature? Because there are many humans who are. Actually, human nature comes from somewhere So yea, it is as I actually said: humanity is differencing themselves from nature, when it's quite the oposite: it's just that we are, right now, a huge part of nature, or at least have a huge influence over it. But we are definitely part of nature. Even if you say you side with humanity, you are part o nature: it's just that you simply want humans to rule even at the most adverse situations. So, my question is whether that is right or wrong. To help everyone see things like I'm seeing them, hear this dilemma:

It is a fact that this planet cannot sustain the current number of humans in the world. Our resources drop much faster than they are restored. Let's say we don't find a "happy" solution for this problematic. On the other hand, we are taught, we have ti etched on our soul, that death is very, very bad. Now I'm not saying it is or that it isn't, but I do think that human deaths are very much necessary. Surely, some of you might rage at this, but I do believe in the life/death cycle: that if one doesnt exist, nor does the other. Now my beliefs regarding life and death aren't important here: the important thing is what unites all this to my dilemma, and it is that, if the planet cannot sustain all of humanity in the numbers it is now, should people die to keep the planet able to have life, or should we damn the planet for our own sake, and look into options, like colonizing Mars? Should we, humans, be regarded even above the planet, or should the entire planet be regarded above humans?

This is what brings this silent war. Even if we don't exactly stab a dagger in Mother Nature's heart, we are slowly killing it. Poison is just as dangerous as any gun. So, if we would defend the planet from, example, a meteor that is about to blow the entire planet in half, shouldn't we also defend the planet from such slow methods, that ultimately deliver the same result? Again, more questions to throw at the fire. But still, this is very much a war. What I want to discuss, though, is who will win, who should win, or if there should be a winner at all. And if you say such war shouldn't happen, then please tell that to all of humanity. Convince them in the way, Ill surely help! Yet for some reason, I don't think that will actually happen...

It is, indeed, a war against nature. But first off, what is nature to begin with? It is, quite simply, the balance that exists in this world. I say humanity is at war with nature because we want, and are changing this balance with whatever means necessary, to satisfy our needs. Sure, there is some people that disagree with this and try to prevent damage to nature, but even they innevitably hurt it. Or who here likes living in a cave, eating food cooked over a flame sprung by hitting two rocks together? No takers, right? Then we are changing balance. Sure, most of those changes are very well acceptable: the problem is, our growth is too quick, and our collective impact too big. So right now, the war is starting. It's not like you'll be seeing soldiers fire at trees or something: that's not the kind of war, lol. I doubt there are people who seriously want to make nature cease to exist. But we still want to bend it to our will, but nature just cannot respond the way we want to.

So, it is definitely a struggle, and so I call it war. And Aister, you said something interesting: nature isnt a powerful presence. Really? Are you not part of nature? Because there are many humans who are. Actually, human nature comes from somewhere So yea, it is as I actually said: humanity is differencing themselves from nature, when it's quite the oposite: it's just that we are, right now, a huge part of nature, or at least have a huge influence over it. But we are definitely part of nature. Even if you say you side with humanity, you are part o nature: it's just that you simply want humans to rule even at the most adverse situations. So, my question is whether that is right or wrong. To help everyone see things like I'm seeing them, hear this dilemma:

It is a fact that this planet cannot sustain the current number of humans in the world. Our resources drop much faster than they are restored. Let's say we don't find a "happy" solution for this problematic. On the other hand, we are taught, we have ti etched on our soul, that death is very, very bad. Now I'm not saying it is or that it isn't, but I do think that human deaths are very much necessary. Surely, some of you might rage at this, but I do believe in the life/death cycle: that if one doesnt exist, nor does the other. Now my beliefs regarding life and death aren't important here: the important thing is what unites all this to my dilemma, and it is that, if the planet cannot sustain all of humanity in the numbers it is now, should people die to keep the planet able to have life, or should we damn the planet for our own sake, and look into options, like colonizing Mars? Should we, humans, be regarded even above the planet, or should the entire planet be regarded above humans?

This is what brings this silent war. Even if we don't exactly stab a dagger in Mother Nature's heart, we are slowly killing it. Poison is just as dangerous as any gun. So, if we would defend the planet from, example, a meteor that is about to blow the entire planet in half, shouldn't we also defend the planet from such slow methods, that ultimately deliver the same result? Again, more questions to throw at the fire. But still, this is very much a war. What I want to discuss, though, is who will win, who should win, or if there should be a winner at all. And if you say such war shouldn't happen, then please tell that to all of humanity. Convince them in the way, Ill surely help! Yet for some reason, I don't think that will actually happen...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum